Template:WP1.0

Military history: Aviation / North America / United States / World War II B‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force North American military history task force United States military history task force World War II task force

Aviation: Aircraft B‑class

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Anyone know if the p-38 was super or turbocharged?

Both. Even the P-322 had a mechanical supercharger, contrary to an assertion made in this article.

It had a mechanically-driven supercharger combined with a turbosupercharger, so you could say "both". This was common practice with WW2 turbo engines. --172.178.71.38 19:52, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, a supercharger derives its boost via an electrical motor, while a turbocharger is powered by a turbine spun by the exhaust gasses. Certain aircraft such as the Spitfire have a supercharger, alternatively called a "blower" that is powered by an electric motor. The P-38's charger is powered by an exhaust-driven turbine. Hence, it has a turbocharger, not a supercharger. Esoterically, in aviation motors, there is enough of a difference that using the term "supercharger" alone will cause confusion.

Close but incorrect. In a modern definition (which I think is a source of much confusion for aviation enthusiasts), the supercharger is driven by the engine (not by an electrical motor) while the turbocharger is driven by exhaust gas. However, the original definition of supercharging simply meant that the air pressure in the intake manifold was above atmospheric pressure. The superchargers themselves could be gear-driven (modern "supercharger") and exhaust-driven (modern "turbocharger"). Most WWII aircraft engines called "turbosupercharged" (including Allison V-1710, if I'm not mistaken) actually had both a gear-driven supercharger and an exhaust-driven turbosupercharger. For a good contemporary discussion of this, see http://rwebs.net/avhistory/opsman/geturbo/geturbo.htm - Emt147 ^Burninate! 03:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the easiest way to tell if an aircraft is using a geared supercharger only or a turbosupercharger is to examine the exhaust stacks. Turbosupercharged engines route all exhaust gases through the turbo and usually have only one or two exhausts per engine or no obvious exhausts at all (e.g. B-17, P-38, P-47). Aircraft with only gear-driven superchargers have multiple exhausts, often one per cylinder (e.g. Spitfire, P-51, Bf 109, Fw 190, Yak-1/3/9, and so on... much more common in WWII). Another (albeit more subjective) method is to note the loudness of the exhaust because the turbo acts as a muffler while gear supercharged-only aircraft often have straight exhaust with pipe length measured in inches. From personal experience, I can vouch that a B-17 with four turbosupercharged engines is significantly quieter than a single-engined trainer like a T-6. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 04:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The '38 is commonly said to be turbosupercharged, or turbocharged... Also, shouldn't the ref to the Army can opener and Walther be on a disambiguation page...? --squadfifteen 3/10/05

Having examined the cutaway drawings provided in J Ethell's volume in "The Great Book of World War II Airplanes", the P-38 definitely had what we would today call a turbocharger. It was purely driven by exhaust gases, with a wastegate controlling the amount of boost (ie. positive manifold pressure). When you look at the P-38 from the top, you can actually see the tops of the horizontally mounted turbochargers, with the exhaust exiting directly off the turbine (incorporating the wastegate control valve) It was quite modern for its day, even incorporating an intercooler (a radiator between the turbocharger impellor and the engine manifold to cool the compressed air coming from the turbocharger, as compression of air invariably heats it significantly). The installation in the P-47 was similar, with the turbocharger located in the rear fuselage. However, Rolls Royce Merlin engined aircraft (eg. P-51, Spitfire, Hurricane, Lancaster etc. etc.) had what we would now call a supercharger, as it was mechanically driven from the engine. They too had intercoolers. It is interesting to note that most aviation historians don't seem to make much about whether or not a particular aircraft was equipped with a turbo/supercharged engine. It seems that those aircraft so equipped were markedly superior to other aircraft at medium to high altitudes. --NiceDoge 11:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. For the sake of our discussion here, there are basically two types of aircraft reciprocating engines: "Normally aspirated," & "Supercharged." A normally aspirated engine is like those found in the vast majority of automobiles, that is to say the action of the pistons during the intake stroke causes a vacuum in the intake manifold which draws air into the engine. A normally aspirated engine will never be able to have more manifold pressure than ambient atmospheric pressure (manifold pressure is basically the barometric pressure in the intake manifold between the device which serves as a throttle valve & the intake valves--in American engines, manifold pressure is measured in "inches of mercury") . If the local barometric pressure is, for example 30.00 inches of mercury, our given normally aspirated engine will only be capable, with a fully opened throttle ("full throttle" like one would have at full power for takeoff) to obtain probably no more than 28 or 29 inches of mercury of manifold pressure. Since atmospheric pressure normally drops as soon as one leaves the ground & altitude increases, a normally aspirated engine will begin to loose power as soon as the airplane it is powering leaves the runway & begins to climb. This is the way the engine in, for example, a Piper Cub or Cessna 140 or 150 behaves. A supercharged engine, on the other hand, has some device working with the engine to give that engine the ability to either exceed ambient atmospheric pressure with its manifold pressure (which amounts to more power available per cubic inch of engine displacement at wide-open-throttle power settings), or to maintain its on-the-ground manifold pressure (expressed as "sea-level power") as it climbs into lower ambient atmospheric pressure by, basically, "cramming" compressed air into the engine. Save for very low-powered light primary training airplanes, I cannot recall during WWII, at least in the American aircraft inventory, ANY airplanes equipped with normally aspirated engines. All of the basic & advanced trainers & ESPECIALLY the fighters had supercharging of some type. The Allison V-1710, as an example, was normally equipped with a simple mechanical supercharger geared directly to the crankshaft (commonly called, as has been pointed out previously, a "blower"), which would provide anywhere from 45 to about 60 inches of sea-level takeoff manifold pressure (depending upon the specific model V-1710). Everyone loves to cite the Curtiss P-40 as having 'poor altitude performance.' This was because the V-1710 in most P-40s only allowed the engine to develop sea-level power up to about 12,000 feet. At this altitude (called the engine's "critical altitude"), the mechanical supercharger was no longer capable of drawing in enough air to match the pressure available at sea level, so the engine power, above this altitude would drop off, and consequently so aircraft performance would also drop off. Early models of the P-51 were equipped with this same engine, & thus suffered from the same problem. In the P-51, it wasn't until the airframe was equipped the Merlin engine (with its much more advanced, more efficient mechanical supercharger) that the design found its famous high-altitude performance. Some late high-altitude models of the V-1710 (those found in the P-63, for example) actually had an external auxiliary mechanical supercharger, similar to that found on the Merlin, driven by the engine via a power take-off (PTO) arrangement. The term "turbosupercharger" is considered an antiquated term to describe a supercharger that is driven by exhaust gases flowing over a turbine (what we now refer to as a "turbocharger"). This was the case with the P-38. The Allisons in a P-38 were basically that same V-1710 found in the P-40 (with a simple mechanical supercharger) supplemented by turbosuperchargers, giving the P-38 the excellent altitude performance that the poor old standard P-40 would never enjoy.
By the way, the reason a B-17 with its four 1820 cubic inch displacement, 1000 horsepower engines sounds quieter when it floats by in front of you at an airshow than one of those T-6/SNJs with its single snarling 1340 cubic inch, 600 horsepower engine, is due to the propeller! A normally equipped T-6's two-bladed prop when it goes by is turning the full rpm of the engine & the prop's tips are approaching supersonic speeds (next time, notice how that snarl really gets nasty as the prop's tips go right by in front of you & you are looking straight into the side of the propeller). While the exhaust system of the B-17 will slightly muffle the engine noise itself (most contemporary warbirds don't even have operable turbosuperchargers on them anyway--most modern warbirds never fly at the altitudes requiring them & they pose extra unnecessary maintenance & expence--& even if one does, when you see it flying at the low altitudes of an airshow, all of the exhaust would be coming out fully opened waste gates with the turbos just along for the ride), the B-17's four three-bladed props are turning at just about half of the engine crankshaft rpm, and are therefore apparently quieter.
Sorry this was so long, but I hope it helps.192.100.70.210 07:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)CBsHellcat[reply]

memo (to myself?): this article would benefit from adding the story of the "Glacier girl". BACbKA 17:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig page "Atlanta" links here, but doesn't mention Lockheed's original name, Atalanta... Trekphiler 08:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi:

Great article and thanks to all the people who contributed a wealth of detail. The article could use a general neatening up to make it an easier read as there are an unending string of two sentence paragraphs in the middle.

I agree, much more detail than what is appropriate for an article of this type. Some of the more lengthy sections could be pared down by at least 2/3.Landroo (talk) 09:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article: "However, the turbocharger intercooler system that had been housed in the leading edges of the wings had proven vulnerable to combat damage, and could explode if the wrong series of controls were mistakenly activated. Ultimately, they were inefficient, and so engine fit was rethought."

I haven't heard anything on how the wing-mounted intercoolers could explode under improper use. The turbos in the P-38 prior to the "H" model did have a danger in overspeeding, but this danger applied to the turbine itself, not the intercoolers in the wings. What I have heard, however, is that a severe backfire (a somewhat common occurance in the plane) could deform the leading edge of the wing as the blast went through the intercooler.

Yeah, that makes more sense. An intercooler is just a fancy radiator. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 02:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what changed. The Air Corps was planes, pilots, etc. The Air Force included also support such as doctors, similar to the present-day service of that name. David R. Ingham 23:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Air Corps became a combat arm (such as infantry and artillery) in 1941 but had no organizations after June 20, 1941. Flying units were part of the US Army Air Forces. Similarly, the infantry had no organizations per se--those were part of the US Army Ground Forces. Between 1935 and 1941 the Air Corps had actually split in two as a precursor to this--the GHQ Air Force (later called Air Force Combat Command) had all the combat planes, units and pilots. It reported directly to the Chief of Staff. The Chief of the Air Corps had all the bases, and procurement-supply-training responsibilities but no control over the combat units.

The Germans seem to have understood compressibility at this time. The Messerschmitt Me 262 was designed not much later and looked like a modern jet. The Messerschmitt Me 163 apparently had high speed stability problems, but that was at higher speed than it was designed for. It, also, had swept wings and a pointed nose. David R. Ingham 23:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the article on the 262: "The production Me 262 had a leading edge sweep of 18.5° primarily to properly position the center of lift relative to the center of mass and not for the aerodynamic benefit of increasing the critical Mach number of the wing (the sweep was too slight to achieve any significant advantage)" -- early 262-related design work featured a more dramatic sweep, but it's not clear from the article whether the Germans understood compressibility at the time.

Descendants

Direct descendants of the Lockheed P-38, each at the cutting edge of technology in their time, are:

• P-80 Shooting Star
• F-104 Starfighter
• U-2 Dragon Lady
• SR-71 Blackbird
• F-117 Nighthawk
• F-22 Raptor

This is a POV unsupported claim. Please explain how any of these aircraft are direct descendants of the P-38. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 03:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this claim can only be applied to three aircraft:

• XP-49
• XP-50
• Constellation

—Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 05:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Prototype of the F-22, the YF-22 was called the Lightning II so one could argue that, at least in spirit, it is a descendant of the P-38. The only other link between those aircraft is that they were all designed at the Skunk Works. 70.80.107.221 22:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what "Related aircraft" means. XP-58 was a direct development of the P-38 design. Unless F-22 is a two-boom-and-pod escort fighter powered by turbosupercharged engines, it doesn't count. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 03:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one who thinks the XP-49 & XP-58 belong on separate pages? They weren't strictly "variants", but separate designs. Also, IIRC, the P-80 was the first Skunk Works project. (See Caidin, FTD, & {somebody's} Turbulent Skies.) And, for anybody interested, the "dead engine" technique was developed, IIRC, by Tony LeVier, who did heart-stopping demonstrations across Britain, cutting an engine on takeoff, to prove it wouldn't kill you. (LeVier, of course, had enough hours in type to get away with damn near anything...). Trekphiler 07:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some anon user added this bit:

though the most popular belief states that the P-38 enigines could not handle the European, rain-soaked, low-grade fuel.

The implication is that engines were damaged by detonation. Is there any evidence for this? US aircraft in Soviet service (and later in the war Soviet aircraft as well) used exclusively 100-grade fuel provided by the United States. British aircraft also used high-octane fuels. The only ones who did not were Soviets (early in the war) and Germans (hence their huge-displacement engines).

Anyway, since this claim is unsupported by references and uses weasel words, I pulled it. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 19:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What may be referenced here is that the ethyl lead in British avgas had a tendency to precipitate out of solution, fouling valves and promoting backfires and detonation.

I noticed this claim is still in the article. I feel it tends to conflict with many other sources that state the reverse, that the allies had higher octane fuels which gave them the advantage of being able to extract more power from smaller engines. One would also ask that if there was a fuel problem, why weren't similar problems encountered with other engines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NiceDoge (talk • contribs) 11:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were a bunch of reasons for P-38 engine failure. Warren Bodie in his fairly complete book on the P-38 comes to the unusual conclusion that low morale in P-38 groups was the main reason for its poor performance in the ETO. How else can one explain the poor showing in UK/W.Euro against the very positive records seen in MTO and Pacific and Aleutian and Caribbean and Burma? There was even a P-38 training squadron in the States that operated more than 24,000 flight hours and never had a fatality... How could a bunch of green tyros outperform blooded vets in the UK? Bodie found military records and personal recollections that pointed to Brigadier General Hunter and Colonel Harry W. Magee as being indicative examples of how not to lead your men. Both commanders did not like the P-38; Magee was a self-professed P-40 man unfortunately placed in charge of P-38 training in the UK. Good guys and enthusiastic pilots like Colonel Cass Hough couldn't repair all the damage they saw such as the fear that would fill a newly-arrived pilot as he's made aware of every bad trait known to the rumor mill. The 8th Air Force and the Fifteenth Air Force P-38 pilots had very few successes that could have changed this attitude, making it a self-fulfilling prophecy guaranteeing failure. The mood permeated ground crews as well, increasing shoddy workmanship and in-flight mechanical failures. YES, the fuel was seen to be different in England. Effective octanes were lower, and the balance of fuel additives varied from month to month, sometimes from batch to batch. One especially bad load of fuel immediately fouled every Allison spark plug with a soft coat of lead metal, grounding the whole fighter group for a week. On the other hand, fuel delivered to the MTO and the Pacific was stable and 'hot', giving fine performance. People usually assume that this fuel was from US-based refineries. I don't have any sources which trace exactly where the fuel flowed from, I only have sources observing the performance results.

One last factor added to the ruinous mood in the ETO: a sizable delivery of P-38s arrived that were the down-tuned P-38G and P-38H models. These planes had high-performance engines restricted in normal use by insufficient cooling systems; the core-type intercoolers which would have allowed full performance were perennially late from Lockheed's subcontractor. Not until the 'J' model would engine cooling problems cease to make for too-hot carburetors that could bring about destructive detonation if not operated correctly. Which brings us back to the mood of the pilots: Cass Hough (and later Lucky Lindy) taught ETO pilots to cool their carbs and save fuel during long, boring transit flights by running their machines at high manifold pressure and low rpm. Many refused, saying it gave them a rough ride. Bad training and bad attitude combined with a number of other factors to ruin the P-38's record in Western Europe.

Weather was sooo not a factor. How can anyone say British and Western European weather was worse than that found in Italy in the winter? The Italian Alps? The Aleutian Islands? The Burma Hump? Then anytime the aircraft climbed up past, say, 32,000 feet, there would be nothing but freezing thin air that was the same all over the world. I truly don't think weather was what held the P-38 back in the ETO. Binksternet 19:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot remember where I read it (I know it was in a reputable source--if I can find the reference, I'll add it later), but the Merlin powered Mustangs that started arriving in England in late 1943 & early 1944 suffered a similar fouling problem trying to digest British gasoline with their American spark plugs. When British spark plugs were installed in the originally British-designed engines, the fouling problem went away.192.100.70.210 07:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)CBsHellcat[reply]

Maybe the Brits were using more ethanol as an anti-knock compound in their aviation fuel. Tetra-ethyl lead might have been in short supply or perhaps the lead scavengers such as 1,2-dibromoethane and 1,2-dichloroethane which are added along with TEL to prevent it from fouling plugs and cylinders. If ethanol was in the avgas, water pulled in from atmospheric humidity could have collected in fuel tanks and fuel lines, causing icing at altitude, general poor performance and outright engine failure. Binksternet 15:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First time I read the allegation of british fuel being of a poor quality. IIRC they used 1st rate stuff right from the start and kept getting better and better. In "America´s 100.000" H.Dean attributes the engine problems to the cold winter air and high altitudes in central europe. The sentence should be removed.Markus Becker02 (talk) 06:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, the info was (almost) there: "The powerplant problems were not entirely the Allison engine's fault. Many of the reliability problems were actually due to the inadequate cooling system, in particular the cumbersome plumbing of the turbosupercharger intercooler ducting which directed air all way from the supercharger out to the wingtips and back. In addition, the lack of cowl flaps were a problem. In the European theatre of operation, temperatures at altitude were often less than 40 degrees below zero and the Lightning's engines would never get warmed up enough for the oil to be able to flow adequately. Octane and lead would separate out of the fuel at these low temperatures, causing the Allisons to eat valves with regularity, to backfire through the intercooler ducts, and to throw rods, sometimes causing the engine to catch fire.

These problems bedeviled the Lightnings until the advent of the J version with its simplified intercooler ducting and the relocation of the oil cooler to a chin position underneath the propeller spinner. When the P-38J reached the field, the Allison engine was finally able to attain its full rated power at altitude, and the engine failure rate began to go down" http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p38_17.htmlMarkus Becker02 (talk) 07:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Markus Becker, your online source ~jbaugher1 gets a few points wrong. Temperatures are universally "below zero" at altitude around the whole world. It wasn't significantly colder 20,000 feet above England than at 20,000 above the Mediterranean, for example, but P-38 performance over Italy wasn't plagued with engine failures. H.Dean falls prey to the same conclusion: that cold air temperatures over Europe were the problem. Actually, tetra-ethyl lead doesn't precipitate out of fuel in aircraft flying through cold air--lead coats valves, plugs and cylinders when there is a shortage of scavenger compounds blended in. Additionally, jbaugher1 writes that the cooling system was inadequate (implying too-hot internal temperatures) and then later writes the oil "would never get warmed up enough..." He can't have it both ways. This shows poor regurgitation of multiple sources.

One conjecture that H. Dean and jbaugher1 don't mention is that British tetra-ethyl lead in the fuel was replaced in part or in whole by ethanol which was (and remains) a far cheaper, easier to manufacture and more widely available anti-knock additive. However, ethanol in fuel tends to pull atmospheric moisture into the tank, making for problems with engines running rough as well as ice in freezing conditions. Another conjecture is that tetra-ethyl lead scavenger compounds 1,2-dibromoethane and 1,2-dichloroethane were shorted in British fuel, allowing lead to foul engines. There was a war on. Who knows? I have not yet seen definitive research into British wartime fuel makeup.

What's known are these facts:

• Sometimes British fuel had tetra-ethyl lead problems
• Early P-38 engines were well-matched by the out-and-back intercooler ducting
• P-38G and P-38H model Allisons were too large for the ducting; a pilot could push the engine hard for a short period but training was essential to prevent backfire and overheating
• Eighth Air Force P-38 pilot practices were characteristic of general low morale
• motivated and trained pilots wreaked havoc in early P-38Gs and Hs (see Death of Isoroku Yamamoto)
• Lack of cowl flaps didn't harm P-38 operations elsewhere around the globe
• the P-38J intercooler lifted limitations on available engine power. Binksternet (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about Italy and about the late versions of the P-38 being better, but IIRC they used exactly these late P-38 when they starred flying missions from Italy into Germany.Markus Becker02 (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got a question regarding the fuel. Form where did the USAAF units based in the UK get it? i know the UK imported oil form the US even before the war and I also read about tankers with gasoline crossing the Atlantic during the war, so it´s IMO likely the USAAF used american made avgas in Britain. Anybody knowing about it?Markus Becker02 (talk) 11:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked around a bit. The UK imported high octane fuel form the USA since 1940, fuel for Italy was shipped from the UK and the reason for the engine problems seem to be an interaction between the turbochargers and the changes made to the fuel. I´m not aware of any other turbo- or supercharged aircraft having had similar problems in spite of using the same fuel.Markus Becker02 (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some official reports on the US fuel problems here: [1] - it was due to using 130 Grade fuel with an increased (5.5cc) lead content which the some spark plugs couldn't handle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.252.207 (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone heard of attempts at refitting the aircraft with Rolls Royce Merlin engines, as was done with the Mustang? Seems Merlin equipped Lightnings could have been a winning combination for the 8th Air Force high altitude bomber escort mission. Gjs238 17:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lockheed drew up plans for a Packard Merlin engine in the P-38; a fairly simple modification. I agree such a plane would have been quite the hot property... Unfortunately, there was a certain General Knudsen in charge of US government war purchases--the guy had been a top executive at General Motors before the war. He likely had a large block of stock in GM, the competitor of Packard who was making Merlins for US aircraft. Knudsen was NOT interested in giving Packard any more business than absolutely necessary. If Allison had the capability (and they did) then they were going to get the contract, no arguments. :( Binksternet 07:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the non-existent P-38K. It demanded too much a change in the airframe to be economical. The production line would have to been shut down an re-tooled to create what would essentially be a new airplane, and wartime urgency prevented that.

The article describes the P-38K differently: There were two P-38Ks developed in 1942-1943. The first was a modified P-38E with the Hamilton Standard propellers being fitted to the P-47 and the new intercoolers being developed for the P-38J, its performance led to the development on the second aircraft. A modified P-38G (re-designated P-38K-1-LO) was fitted with the propellers and a new Allison engine with 100 more bhp than even the later P-38L. In tests it was rated at 432MPH in Military Power and predicted to exceed 450MPH in War Emergency Power with a similar increase in rate of climb, load, ceiling and range. However, the War board refused the change due to the 2-3 week shutdown of the Lightning production line needed to redesign the cowlings to fit the new engine. Gjs238 10:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet there is an external link at the foot of the article titled "What Ever Happened to the P-38K?" that describes the Rolls-Royce Merlin XX proposal.

Thanks  :-) Gjs238 22:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Merlin-engined P-38 was only a proposal. There wasn't a single airframe so modified, as far as I know. The P-38K had an improved Allison, not a Merlin. Many people think the Merlin would have given a hefty performance boost; some at Lockheed worked quite hard to get the Packard-Merlin approved for the P-38, though they failed at every turn.

Wayne Cunningham writes that the notional P-38 with Merlins would NOT have given a tremendous performance boost. He's constructed thrust, weight and parasitic drag tables and concludes that the Allison 1710 with turbo would give the same thrust at and above 23,000 feet as a Packard-Merlin 1650 with turbo. Below 23,000 feet, the Merlins begin to distinguish themselves and at 8,000 feet the difference is more pronounced. For bomber escort missions, the Merlin wouldn't have helped at all; for fighter sweeps and ground attack it would have been a hotter plane. Binksternet (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-468/cover.htm%7Caccessdate=2006-04-22
  • In A-6 Intruder on Sat Jun 3 22:43:46 2006, 404 Not found
  • In A-6 Intruder on Tue Jun 6 23:30:02 2006, Socket Error: (111, 'Connection refused')
  • In P-38 Lightning on Tue Jun 13 20:16:35 2006, 404 Not found

---

maru (talk) contribs 00:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luftwaffe did not call the P-38 a fork-tailed devil. They called it a preferred target, thanks to it's size and lack of maneuverability. P-38 was a much feared ground attack plane, and it's possible German ground forces called it that, but not Luftwaffe. The term first appears in a Stars And Stripes article about P-38Gs in North Africa, so it's possible the term has been coined for propaganda purposes by a journalist working for the magazine, or it has been heard from a German POW.

Please state your surname. Both the Germans and the Japanese had names that refered to hatred toward the Lightning, because of its effectiveness and speed. I dunno about "fortailed devil". Oyo321 23:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I remember hearing that the name "Fork-Tailed Devil" was never actually used by the Germans to describe the P-38. I believe I read this in Eric M. Bergerud's book "Fire in the Sky," but I might be mistaken. This might be a story along the lines of the German's supposedly calling the U.S. Marines in WWI "Devil Dogs," when no historical record of this exists. SkipSmith 07:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there's an award for most ugly, long-winded, unformatted article, this is a candidate.

Someone should reformat it, at the very least. --Kaz 01:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, having glanced at the P-51 article, I noticed it's similarly ugly (not quite as bad, but along the same lines), and I'm suspecting that this is a trend with these aircraft articles. If so, perhaps a new format which still allows all of the data to be presented could be invented. Or more sub-articles created, for whatever info couldn't be formatted more prettily than endless long paragraphs. --Kaz 17:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the contributing factors to the P-38's somewhat spotty reputation among new pilots was the rumor that you couldn't successfully bail out of a P-38. While the traditional jump out of the seat would indeed have been fatal, bailing out of a P-38 is no more difficult than other planes (it was just a bit different). This information isn't in the article, and I'd feel it should be included. Problem is, looking over the article, I can't find an appropriate place to mention this.

I would think somewhere under 'Design and development': from what I remember of the WWII Lightning training film I saw some time back the recommendations were to either turn upside down and drop out, or climb out onto the inner wing and slide off the back; the airflow then carried the pilot down below the tail. Mark Grant 02:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other than A Guy Named Joe, all the films mentioned are shorts or documentaries. In addtion, I'm not sure any of these (except perhaps Joe) are truly notable. I appreciate the work Bzuk did in compiling tte list, and I hope we can find an acceptable solution. Perhaps an article listing WWII aircraft that appeared in contemprary documentaries, with links in the relevant aircraft articles.

As to the fancruft, it should always go, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content guidelines. - BillCJ 19:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Hi BillCJ, thanks for your comment. As I had indicated before, there was some value in that the P-38 was treated as an iconic aircraft during the war years and after. The reason for including some of the minor film documentaries is that they had some intrinsic value- a rare film on Richard Bong, the shooting down of Yamamoto's Betty and a look at the P-38 production line "Rosie the Riveters" and an unusual documentary on the P-38 photo Joes. I did not go into "true" pop culture wherein Hartley Earl based the design of the first postwar Cadillac "tailfin" on the P-38's streamlined shape and twin booms. That would be streching it, but irregardless, the P-38 was an important symbol of the US war effort and the contemporary films that featured this striiking aircraft do service a notice (IMHO). Thanks again for your efforts in making the aviation articles accurate and "readable." Bzuk 20:26 7 January (UTC).

I can't find the Johnson quote in the relevant chapter in his book. It could be stashed elsewhere in the book, but I doubt it. But the statement does accurately reflect what he is saying in that chapter. I presume it's a real quote, I just don't know where it came from. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 13:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found it here[2]. The author is Greg Goebel--he placed his text in the public domain and lists several sources. As I do not have any of those books, I can't tell for myself which book contains the quote. The other thing is that since large portions of this article appear to be lifted from Goebel's text, I believe we should attribute it to him. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The statement: "A P-38 piloted by Clay Tice was the first American aircraft to land in Japan after VJ-Day, when he and his wingman set down on Nitagahara because his wingman was low on fuel." is in the article. I believe the whole thing was a concoction by Tice as he wanted to have the honour of being the first to touch down in Japan after hostilities had ended. I recall reading an article in an Air Classics magazine that essentially said that Tice had faked the reason for the landing. Any verification of this incident by other editors? Bzuk 14:19 24 January 2007 (UTC).

The wiki entry states: "Over 10,000 Lightnings were manufactured in all; it was one of the few combat aircraft that had been in production throughout the entire duration of World War II."

However, it should state "in production throughout the entire duration of American involvement in World War II."

World War Two started on September 1, 1939. American involvement started on December 7, 1941. The first production contract for the P-38 (not prototypes or service test aircraft) was placed on September 20, 1939, when 66 aircraft were ordered. (source: Lockheed Aircraft Since 1913, by Rene Francillon, Putnam, 1987, page 164.)

Therefore, the P-38 was not in production throughout the entire duration of World War II. Baclightning 01:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5th Fleet anThe line "The P-38 was used most extensively and successfully in the South West Pacific theater, where it was credited with destroying more Japanese aircraft than any other Allied fighter.[citation needed]" in the opening section, IMO, is misleading.

What is the basis for this statement?

The aircraft that destroyed the most Japanese aircraft was the Grumman F6F Hellcat, which is credited in Naval Aviation Combat Statistics World War II with destroying 5,163 Japanese aircraft in air-to-air combat.

The USAAF Statistical Digest, in tables 157 and 169-172, credits all USAAF fighters with 4,040 air victories over Japanese aircraft. Clearly, then, no single USAAF fighter type could have destroyed as many Japanese aircraft as the F6F.

Frank Olynyk's work on USAAF victory credits in the Pacific gives the figure for P-38 kills as exactly 1,700 (this may not include the CBI). John Stanaway in P-38 Lightning Aces of the Pacific and CBI says that "Over 1800 Japanese aircraft fell to the guns of the P-38s from the Fifth, Seventh and Thirteenth Air Forces in the Pacific and the Tenth and Fourteenth Air Forces in China and Burma." (page 6)

So the figure for P-38 kills against the Japanese is somewhere between 1,700 and 1,800, give or take a few - about one-third of the number of F6F kills.

Given this, how do we define "South West Pacific", and how do we assume that the P-38 had the most kills there?

Even if it can be proven, the wording is misleading, and gives the impression that the P-38 had the most kills of any allied fighter against the Japanese, which it did not. Baclightning 01:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the text is questionable, as I knew the Hellcat had over 5000 kills. I'm not sure what the actual correct statement is, so I added the fact tag. The reason I reverted the change to the text was that no reason for the change was given in the edit summary. When an anonymous user makes a change with no explanation, I usually default to the previous version if I don't know the correct entry.

The same user also changed Over 10,000 Lightnings were manufactured in all; it was one of the few combat aircraft that had been in production throughout the entire duration of World War II, adding American involvement in. As the Lightning was ordered into production in August, 1939, the original statement is accurate. - BillCJ 03:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same confusion is still in the article. In reading this I wasn't sure if it was the Hellcat or the Lightning that has the most kills against the Japanese. Could some of the confusion be over carrier-based vs land-based fighters? SkipSmith 07:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The person who changed the entry was me. What is your specific source for the August, 1939 date? Lockheed Aircraft Since 1913, by Rene Francillon, Putnam, 1987, page 164, gives the date of September 20, 1939 for the first production order of 66 aircraft. I believe that the September 20, 1939 date, not the August, 1939 date, is accurate. Baclightning 03:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The date I have is August 10, 1939. It's from The Hamlyn Concise Guide to American Aircraft of WWII, 1982. Reprinted 1996 by Chartwell Press.

Even if the September date is accurate, given that the war officially started on the first of that month, that's still pretty much the entire war. Given that the US entered in Dec of 1941, over 2 years later, just saying it was in production during American involvement is even less accurate. We could be specific and just use the dates, but that diminishes some of the impact of the statement.

On the other hand, given that deliveries didn't start until 1941, I think it would be best to change the whole statemetn to something more accurate altogether.

Sorry about reverting your edit, but it does help if we have an edit summary. You'd be surprised how much nonsense gets put in by anonymous users, well intentioned or otherwise. I hope you don't take it personal. Happy editing! - BillCJ 05:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't take it personally at all! I checked the David Mondey-edited book that you mentioned, and it does indeed give August 10, 1939 as the date of the first production order. I checked a couple of other books: Gene Stafford's P-38 in Action gives September 16, 1939; Bowers & Swanborough's US Military Aircraft since 1909 gives just September, 1939; William Green's War Planes of the Second World War: Fighters, Vol, 4 gives August 10; and Bowers & Angelluci's The American Fighter gives September 20. So obviously, there is much disagreement among the "experts".

My own feeling is that the Francillon book, which is a 566-page magnum opus on the Lockheed company, written with full co-operation from the company, is most likely to be right, but given that so many different authors give so many different dates, I cannot be sure. So in this case, I think it's best just to let it stand! Baclightning 05:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a misunderstanding here. Apart from the fact that Hellcats didn't see action until September 43, they were used primarily by the 3rd Fleet and USMC squadrons in the Pacific Ocean Areas, rather than in the South West Pacific Area, where the USAAF predominated, although operations did occasionally cross boundaries between the two theaters. Grant | Talk 02:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry all for butting in, just got interested and couldn't help looking for any little ways I could to make the article flow better. If I've made any errors or wrong assumptions, please revert them. The article already reads pretty well and shows promise! --Red Sunset 23:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No apologies necessary - that is how Wikipedia works. What I've seen looks good. You have a skill for rewording that I envy! Happy editing~ - BillCJ 23:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too kind BillCJ, too kind! However, I've just re-read my edits and spotted something that needs attention, but while I'm here, as there seems to be some difference of opinion regarding the P-38's success in the South West Pacific theater, could this part be changed to:

"The P-38 was most extensively and successfully used in the South West Pacific theater, where it was credited with being second only to the Grumman F6F Hellcat in destroying more Japanese aircraft than any other U.S. fighter." (With relevant links of course.) What do you think?

Regards--Red Sunset 22:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or if there is contention over the claims that the success was achieved in the South West Pacific theatre, how about:

"...used in the Pacific theater, and was credited with..."

Perhaps that would allow the removal of the cite tag! BTW, which is the most correct term, US or U.S.? Look forward to your comments.--Red Sunset 19:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the chapter titled Design and development, a link titled compressibility stall connects to a page titled Compressibility. On that page, while there is (what appears to be) a good discussion of compressibility of fluids (including that of air, in relation to flight), the specific term compressibility stall, as used in this P-38 Lightening article, is never defined. It might be good to do so. I have no education or experience in this area, so I'll leave this as a suggestion to a writer more informed than I. Fagiolonero 23:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've got another issue with the claim. I've always understood the fillets were to solve flutter & had nothing to do with compressibility, which was solved by the dive flaps. Can somebody confirm or correct? Trekphiler 22:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trekphiler, I've taken a shot at separating compressibility and buffeting. Flutter is a great description of what was experienced by test pilots but is technically incorrect a term for the P-38 since it's related to the kind of flexing of the empennage you'd see in a wood and fabric plane. The P-38's tail was strong enough for Kelly Johnson to say "no P-38 ever had 'tail flutter'." Binksternet 23:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding, Binksternet. That's the best explanation of the problem in a handful of words I've ever seen. And it actually explains how the flaps worked, which I don't think I've ever seen before. I can take this page off my watchlist (unless some dimwit puts back XP-49s as "variants" again...) Trekphiler 13:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the positive review. I wonder if I'm up to the task of writing an article about how compressibility plagued the development of P-47s, P-51s and just about every other hot airplane in WWII? Mach speeds were being approached and accelerated airflow over certain parts of the airframe was getting out of control. One source I have says compressibility accidents killed more pilots in other airplanes than in P-38s. It's just that with P-38s the problem was better documented. Binksternet 15:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious where you came up with "losing one [engine] on takeoff created "critical torque" due its long moment arm, rolling the plane towards the live engine's wingtip, rather than the dead engine's"? (The term "critical engine" really wasn't in vogue during WWII, but it's true that losing either engine would equally negatively effect performance) The reason I'm questioning that phrase is because when you loose either engine in ANY twin-engined airplane along the lines of a P-38 (that is not a centerline thrust twin), the dead side ALWAYS drops back due to the sudden loss of thrust & extra drag of the now windmilling prop. When that undesirable yaw occurs toward the dead engine, the live-engine side advancing wing has slightly more lift than the dead-engine side receding wing (a lot of "clean" airflow over the advancing wing, with "dirty" disturbed airflow coming off the yawing airplane over the receding wing). So now we've got the dead side dragging back due to loss of thrust/windmilling prop, along with a slight decrease of lift on that dead side, plus a slight increase of lift on the live-engine side; the airplane will naturally tend to roll toward the dead engine. Remember also, on production P-38s, the props rotate outward (this was changed from the prototypes as a hopeful solution to the tail buffet problem--which you did a very nice job explaining, by the way--it didn't change the tail buffeting, but they left the engines rotating outward anyway...kind of like the lead external mass balance weights they left on the elevator). The significance of that for this discussion is that the "p factor" for both props, no matter which engine had failed, would further aggravate the already adverse yaw/roll into the dead engine. The engine-out procedure you describe is exactly right, that is retard the live engine's power (at least in a low-speed high-drag situation like during takeoff climb or during a go-around), the reason being if you did leave the power up or increase power, not only do you face the natural aerodynamic tendency of all conventional twin-engined aircraft with an engine out to yaw/roll toward the dead engine, but you would exacerbate that tendency by now having a prop at full power trying to push the whole airplane even further into that yaw/roll. At low speed & high drag (like on initial climb out or during a go-around) that aggravated yaw/roll coupled with the full-power "adverse" p factor would be far beyond the aerodynamic effectiveness of the flight controls under the best of circumstances & certainly far beyond the capabilities of a fresh-from-flight-training second lieutenant, & the ship would uncontrollably roll over into the ground toward the dead engine. (The later F-82 Twin Mustang had inward rotating props that practically negated all of what I just described--I've read reports that it wasn't unusual for an F-82 pilot to not even realize that he'd lost an engine!)192.100.70.210 (talk) 10:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)CBsHellcat[reply]

Feel free to rewrite the mention. I'm confident you'd do better than any changes I could make regarding critical engines. Binksternet (talk) 01:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curious what you think of this as a replacement for that paragraph:
"Another unusual issue arose with the unique design of the P-38. When the airplane entered service, it was the first of its kind; there simply were no other high-powered twin-engine fighters from which to draw experience, and there existed no multiple seat training airplanes approaching its performance where an experienced instructor pilot could guide a freshly graduated fighter pilot (that would have carried out the vast majority of his training in single-engine trainers) through his first thrilling, albeit somewhat harrowing, hours of getting acquainted with the ship. A fatal deficiency in training soon came to light and had to be corrected to enable the up and coming thousands of young men facing possible engine failures, especially ones on takeoff, in the big fighter. When an engine is lost just after takeoff while flying most twin-engine aircraft, normal training would be to immediately push the remaining engine to full throttle; if an unsuspecting pilot followed that course in the powerful P-38 below an airspeed of 120 mph, the resulting extreme asymmetric thrust, exacerbated by the big outwardly contra-rotating propellers, produced such a sudden severe yaw, the aircraft would uncontrollably roll over and slam into the ground. Eventually, procedures were taught to allow a pilot to deal with the situation by immediately reducing power on the running engine to keep the yaw under control, then gradually bring the available power back up to keep the airplane flying while disposing of any external load (bombs, drop tanks, etc) and feathering the prop on the dead engine. It was also found by simply removing some of the radio gear and armor plate behind the pilot’s seat allowed for a “piggy-back” arrangement whereby a newly assigned P-38 pilot could receive an orientation demonstration of this and other procedures from an experienced instructor."
I realize this approaches the subject from a somewhat different direction. The "120 mph" figure, more accurate discription of the emergency procedure & "piggy-back" procedures are drawn from the Pilot's Flight Operating Instructions and Pilot Training Manual, & I know Warren Bodie discusses the "piggy-back" operations in his wonderful book.192.100.70.210 (talk) 07:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)CBsHellcat[reply]

I'd say it's too conversational and florid; descriptive words like "thrilling" and "harrowing" aren't quite in the encyclopedic lexicon, though they do well in prose. The sentence containing "the up and coming thousands of young men" strikes me as seeking sympathy. I think a cold, calculated style might do the trick more appropriately here. Your style would work great in a book or magazine article. Just sayin'... Binksternet (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's how I'd rewrite it such that it incorporates your information regarding p-factor:

Another issue with the P-38 was that both engines were "critical" engines—losing one of two engines in any twin engine non-centerline thrust aircraft on takeoff creates sudden drag, yawing the nose toward the dead engine and rolling the dead side's wingtip down. Normal training in flying twin-engine aircraft when losing a critical engine on takeoff would be to push the remaining engine to full throttle; if a pilot did that in the P-38, the resulting engine torque and p-factor force produced a sudden asymmetric roll and the aircraft would flip over and slam into the ground. Eventually, procedures were taught to allow a pilot to deal with the situation by reducing power on the running engine, feathering the prop on the dead engine, and then increasing power gradually until the aircraft was in stable flight. Single-engine takeoffs were possible, though not with a maximum combat load.

How's that? Does the engine torque count as an unbalancing force? Should I call it a ground loop? Binksternet (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, after I had reread my offering, I found it 'wordy' & I didn't think it fit this venue either. I like your rewrite much better, but I still have slight issue with some of the terminology, specifically "critical engine" & "asymmetric roll" as used in this context. By definition, the "critical engine" (in simplified terms) is the engine that 'most effects performance of the airplane when inoperative,' & (I know it's been described this way in some texts, but) failure of either engine in the P-38 effected flight performance equally, so I can't see that it applies here (up until the later model P-38s, only the left engine had a generator, so one could argue that the left engine was the 'critical engine' due to the fact that eventual electrical failure would result if that engine was lost, causing problems with the right engine's electrically-controlled propeller, but that's not really what we are discussing here). Also, "asymmetric roll" connotates to me what we used to call in my military flying days (20-plus years ago) a "rolling pull-out"--that is to say, rolling the airplane while simultaniously pulling high G-forces which result in higher load on one wing than the other (which can readily over-stress the center-section of the wing & should be a maneuver entered into sparingly, if not avoided altogether).
How about something along the lines of (with a couple of parenthetical comments added here not to be included in the final product):

Another issue with the P-38 arose from its unique design feature of outwardly rotating counter-rotating propellers (I realize my previous usage of "contra-rotating propellers" was incorrect). Losing one of two engines in any twin engine non-centerline thrust aircraft on takeoff creates sudden drag, yawing the nose toward the dead engine and rolling the wingtip on the side of the dead engine down. Normal training in flying twin-engine aircraft when losing an engine on takeoff would be to push the remaining engine to full throttle; if a pilot did that in the P-38, regardless of which engine had failed, the resulting engine torque and p-factor force produced a sudden uncontrollable yawing roll (this realm of flight is described in the marvelously understated lexacon of modern military flying as a "departure from controlled flight") and the aircraft would flip over and slam into the ground. Eventually, procedures were taught to allow a pilot to deal with the situation by reducing power on the running engine, feathering the prop on the dead engine, and then increasing power gradually until the aircraft was in stable flight. Single-engine takeoffs were possible, though not with a maximum combat load.

I have to add that I still have doubts about that last sentence, "Single-engine takeoffs were possible, though not with a maximum combat load," because I cannot find any reference to it or provision for it (nor prohibition against it) in the pilot operating instructions or performance charts, but I have no doubt that those lads of the "greatest generation," with their 'unmentionable attributes' forged from steel (mixed with a little stupidity & bravado) would have tried it on probably more than one occasion, just to prove it could be done! As to your questions, I'm sure engine torque could be figured into the "loss of control" equation as a perturbation, but a "ground loop" is something completely seperate from this discussion, being a special kind of terror usually reserved for pilots of tailwheel-type airplanes (it can be said that there are two types of tailwheel pilots where ground loops are concerned--"them that have & them that will"...I humbly admit to being a member of the former catagory!). 71.228.225.234 (talk) 09:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)CBsHellcat[reply]

Single-engine takeoffs were performed routinely by Tony LeVier who showed this capability and many others bordering on the outskirts of the plane's performance envelope to the doubtful and dispirited pilots of the 8th (and maybe 15th) AF stationed in the UK in 1944. Warren Bodie describes LeVier's impressive aerobatic demonstration flights in his book "The Lockheed P-38". Just to get the attention of the guys on the ground, LeVier would first make his presence known to an airfield by diving noisily straight down at full speed toward the runway, bringing all the airmen out of their buildings at a run so they could see who was going to auger in. LeVier's plane had the dive flaps that theirs didn't; the airmen were certain they'd be witnessing some poor chap buy the farm. Binksternet (talk) 18:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should've remembered that (it's been a few years since I read Warren Bodie's book cover-to-cover; guess it's time to rectify that)! Tony LeVier definitely belongs in the catagory of "'attributes' of steel"! I appreciate your willingness to work with me on this change to what you wrote in the article. Thanks! 192.100.70.210 (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)CBsHellcat[reply]

According to Kelly Johnson the prop direction was chosen because gunnery tests showed it made a "better gun platform" Following quote is from Craig Wall http://yarchive.net/air/p38.html:

" I met Kelly in about '82 or '83 at a seminar in Norman, Oklahoma. I asked him about the P-38 props turning outboard at the top, giving two critical engines. I though I knew the answer: because the spiral flow off the props was opposite the tip vortices, the ship should be cleaner. And it is. But that wasn't the reason he gave....

He just said "it made a better gun platform".

That was it. The entire purpose of the airplane was to shoot, and anything that made it do that job better was the deciding factor in all decisions like the prop rotation, etc... He said they actually tried it in every possible combination of prop directions, and that's the one that worked best and gave the highest gunnery scores. " 129.180.47.160 (talk) 02:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what we have in the article, referenced from Warren Bodie's book. Binksternet (talk) 05:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is in reference to what the user Grant65 edited http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=P-38_Lightning&oldid=129125182 and commented:

"rm confusing and possibly inaccurate comparison to the Hellcat [used primarily in the Pacific Ocean Areas, as distinct from the SW Pacific, from late 1943] Discuss on talk if this is a prob.)"

This is an indisputable fact, that the P-38 had it's greatest success in the PTO and CBI during World War II. the top two U.S. fighter aces of World War II, both flew P-38 Lightnings (Richard Bong and Thomas McGuire). The third top U.S. fighter ace was David McCampbell who flew a F-6F Hellcat. I was not the one who wrote the original sentence which was removed, however, I changed the Southwest Pacific Area of Operations to the Pacific Theater of Operations and CBI since the source it was taken from mentions both theater of operations and not specifically the SW Pacific region. There are numerous book sources and websites that can confirm this claim.

The U.S. Navy and Marines both claimed over 5,000 kills flying the Hellcat. http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avf6f.html

P-38 Lightning Aces of the Pacific and CBI by John Stanaway, Paperback; April 1997; 96 pages; ISBN: 9781855326330

"The P-38 was used on virtually every front to which the USAAF were committed, but enjoyed its greatest successes in the Pacific and China-Burma-India (CBI) theatres. The speed, range and firepower of the P-38 made it the favourite of nearly all aircrew fighting in the Solomons, New Guinea and the Philippines, and over 1800 Japanese aircraft fell to its guns. From the first encounters at the end of 1942 until the Lightning scored the final Fifth Air force victories in August 1945, these pilots made the Pacific skies very much their own battleground."

This is later mentioned under the section Service Record it quotes "In the Pacific theater, the P-38 downed over 1800 Japanese aircraft, with more than 100 pilots becoming aces by downing five or more enemy." with the proper source listed. Thus the P-38 was second to the Hellcat fighter in World War II in the Pacific. -Signaleer 07:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Pacific Theater of Operations (PTO) included two subsidiary theatres: the South West Pacific Area (SWPA) and the Pacific Ocean Areas (POA). I was — and still am — questioning the extent to which the Hellcat was used in the SWPA. Anyway, the page is fine and unambiguous the way it reads now. Grant | Talk 13:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the different regions of the PTO, I would not call them theaters but regions. I do not believe the individual who wrote the article was specifically mentioning the success of the Hellcat in the SW Pacific area, just to note that the P-38 was second to kills, after the Hellcat. I believe you misread the section or misinterpreted what claim was trying to be made. -Signaleer 07:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the P-38 was actually third in US fighter kills against the Japanese. The F6F Hellcat was first, with 5,160 (via Frank Olynyk) or 5,163 (official USN/USMC records), the F4U was second, at 2,140 (via both), and the P-38 had 1,857 (1,700 in the Pacific and 157 in the CBI, both via Olynyk). Baclightning 03:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this information, are there any credible sources? -Signaleer 06:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are as listed - for the USN/USMC aircraft, Naval Aviation Combat Statistics World War Two, which is available from the Department of the Navy as a free PDF download at http://www.history.navy.mil/download/nasc.pdf

There is no corresponding report covering USAAF aircraft, so the information is from the many books of Frank Olynyk, specifically in the case of Pacific kills, the list at the back of Victory List No.3 USAAF (Pacific Theater) Credits for the Destruction of Enemy Aircraft in Air to Air Combat World War Two, which breaks down kills by type of fighter.Baclightning 07:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gladly defer to your excellent research, cheers Grant | Talk 11:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The recent addition of a description of the spring tabs modification that led to Ralph Virden's death is missing some information:

• The test sequence assigned Virden was completed successfully prior to his making an unauthorized dive.
• The particular airframe he was flying was the first YP-38 (of thirteen) and it had had the toughest flight testing regimen over the previous 14 months. It had been modified the most times. (This info is probably a red herring.)
• Kelly Johnson concluded that the spring tab's operating link had broken before the tail came off, putting the elevator into full deflection at very high speed.

Reference is the Warren M. Bodie book, The Lockheed P-38 Lightning.

We can add this information to help explain Virden's death, or we can go the other direction and trim back on specific test flight details, leaning the mixture out for more efficiency. This would entail the removal of the first three sentences of the paragraph that starts "One solution tried..." Thoughts? Binksternet 17:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted back to my original last edits on this, as I believe the other info contained in the edits around the timing of certain test flights, and the timing of when the dive brake flaps were tested and incoporated into production are correct, based on info provided by Jeffrey Ethell's p_38 volume in "The Great Book of World War II Airplanes". This has also brought back in my edits on the spring tab modifications, but suggest have a crack at modifying this in accordance with the info from the Bodie source, as sounds better researched (Ethell's discussion on it is barely a paragraph long so he may not have done too much research on it, despite having access to interviews with Kelly Johnson.--NiceDoge 11:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing that the sentence including " tail buffetting and loss of control were, in fact, two unrelated aerodynamic problems" is descriptive enough. I think that the boys in Burbank (and Dayton) were still up against three problems, "Flutter" being the third one that was easiest to deal with, though it took valuable time. I want to see that paragraph lead smoothly to a discussion of the elimination of flutter as a source of trouble in the P-38.

Okay, I tried my hand at making the paragraphs flow better and got farther into it than intended. This section of the article is important to dispel myths that are rampant about the teething troubles of the Lightning but I'm still trying to look at it as an exercise in encyclopedic minimalism. Perhaps we've gone too far in explaining what was going on. The very serious reader can hook up with a dedicated text on the subject, while the casual reader won't really care. Maybe the folks in the middle would be interested. I'll hang this version out to see how it flies... Binksternet 18:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a long section, but then the P-38 did indeed have a fairly interesting development phase, compared to other aircraft. Perhaps we should be thinking about separating the detail off into other, descriptive sections down at the bottom of the article, with the "brief" version kept up the top. Anyone who wants to read the detail can click a link to go down to the detail. It would be a shame to lose all the good info being put in here about the P-38, as good sources of info on it are not commonly carried by your local library!--NiceDoge 10:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that reference to the XP-39 is out of the design section, I want to state for the record that the XP-38 was NOT the first fighter with tricycle landing gear and bubble canopy. Both the XP-38 and XP-39 had these features... and Bell beat Lockheed to first flight of their prototype. This is to debunk the many online articles that list the P-38 as being first. Binksternet 17:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that the aircraft is "..fitted with counter-rotating propellers to eliminate the effect of engine torque" which is wrong. Counter rotation reduces the turning moment after engine failure because the torque reaction is in the opposite direction to the differential thrust. The torque reaction is used to advantage, rather than eliminated.

However I was told that this aircraft had them the wrong way round, and the photo seems to confirm that. This would be a unique feature of the aircraft, which is entirely missing from the page.

If you look at the the propellers in the pictures closely it appears to confirm that the engines turn the wrong way. To reduce the problems of asymmetric thrust the starboard engine should turn anticlockwise as looked at from behind, and the port engine should turn clockwise (the tops of the propellers should move inwards, towards the fuselage). Look carefully at pictures of the P-38 and they turn the opposite way. As far as I know this is the only aircraft to have had this bizarre design feature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomxnp (talk • contribs)

There is some brief coverage of this at Counter-rotating propellers. - BillCJ (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Brief coverage"...I like that BillCJ! I think our 'unsigned/Randomxnp' has never flown a high-powered single-engine airplane before, because, if he/she had, they would know that as you maneuver a high-powered single-engine airplane there are very significant trim changes; that is to say, the forces the pilot feels through the controls change A LOT. Some of these changes in trim are solely due to speed changes (these particular trim changes are felt mostly in the elevator), but a significant amount of the trim changes (and, consequently, the pilot's workload) are due to the single propeller through its gyroscopic & aerodynamic forces (these trim changes are mostly felt through the rudder/yaw/vertical axis). By having two counter-rotating propellers (on a twin-engine airplane like the P-38), the propeller forces I've described are cancelled out in maneuvering flight ("maneuvering flight" not only includes aerobatics/dogfighting, but also takeoffs, go-arounds, & normal turns & climbs/dives & speeding up/slowing down). I will say the term "engine torque" in general usage is an over-simplification of a handful of dynamic forces, but, that notwithstanding, the phrase "..fitted with counter-rotating propellers to eliminate the effect of engine torque" is EXACTLY RIGHT. Our keen observer has noted the one thing that has led to the whole discussion under Counter-rotating propellers, & within that "brief coverage" he/she will find some validity to their argument that the props turned the "wrong way." I also have to agree that I think the P-38 was unique in having the outwardly rotating props. As an aside, in the aforementioned discussion above, I mentioned the F-82, which our observer would say has propellers rotating in the "right direction." The first F-82 actually rolled out of the factory (at the time as an "XP-82") with outwardly rotating props (...props rotating the "wrong way"). It was discovered that, with the props rotating outward, the aircraft wouldn't lift off of the ground; the aerodynamics caused by the props rotating outward completely stalled the entire center-section of the wing (between the fuselages). Subsequently, the prop rotation was reversed (...to the "right way"--rotating inward), and the ship performed magnificently! 71.228.225.234 (talk) 07:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)CBsHellcat[reply]

I feel like I'm missing something. Okay, Counter-rotating props mean that one turns one way, the other turns the other way. What the heck is a 'wrong way' or a 'right way'? Looking at the front of the airplane, the left engine turns clockwise or counter-clockwise? ...and what direction would a wrong-way contra-counter-rotating prop turn in the Southern Hemisphere? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 10:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The wrong way" is, from an outside observer looking at the nose of the plane, the left prop turning counter clockwise, that is, both prop tips rotating out away from the pilot at the upper half of their cycle. This is "wrong" because it makes both engines equally critical in terms of the physical thrust and lift changes that occur when you lose an engine. Another sense of "wrong way" is if the prop rotation messes up the aerodynamics, as in the XP-82's first attempt to gain lift. The Southern Hemisphere is no different... Binksternet (talk) 13:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the XP-38 had the propellers rotating from the top, down towards the canopy. In wet weather, this caused the canopy to be splashed with water from the prop blades. All subsequent production P-38's were fitted with propellers which rotated from the bottom, up, towards the bottom of the gondola (otherwise known as a "cockpit pod"). My grandfather owned several P-38's for his aerial mapping business, so I'm a bit of a fan.  :) 70.169.212.130 (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The de Havilland Hornet had counter-rotating props also. They turned towards the centre from the top. Worked good for them. : ) AMCKen (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)AMCKen[reply]

F-5B or P-38? I have sources that disagree on the model he flew. See: [3] and [4]. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

My High School girlfriends dad flew P-38s in the Pacific and he stated that if a Zero got on the tail of a P-38 the best was to bailout as you could not get away from the zero. He said the standard technique was to attack from altitude and put on enough speed to swoop up after the pass at the Zero. Saltysailor (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The P-38 could pull away from a Zero in a climb. Its thick wing was designed to fill the role of high-altitude interceptor climbing up as fast as possible to meet the enemy. Even so, "boom and zoom" tactics like your pilot friend was describing were good survival insurance. They maximized the P-38's advantages. Binksternet (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I could see bailing out as an option, even with your greater performance in a climb, if that Zero has a bead and is close enough, yikes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.56.100.23 (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It all depended on the skill level of each pilot involved and on what the larger situation was like. There was one P-38 pilot in the Pacific who scored a kill by slowing the aircraft down almost to a stall, "hanging on the props" and pointing the nose at a spot he thought his opponent might show up at. Enemy performs as predicted, is surprised by the unusual tactic and is knocked out of the sky. Such a ballsy move wouldn't be very good for long-term survival if other enemy were nearby--the lack of speed would make for high vulnerability. Anyway, the P-38 could outclimb and outdive the Zero, so the guy getting shot at has some options. Bailing out when targeted would be a chickenshit move and doesn't sound like anybody I ever heard of. Binksternet (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And the word "maneuverability" can mean many things. It isn't just sustained flat turns, though the P38 flown by a skilled pilot could turn astoundingly well--though the pilot might have to manipulate the throttles separately (throttle up right engine and throttle down left engine to increase sustained turn rate in a nose down left turn) and work the flaps and rudders to boost the aircraft's lift entering into the turn. Some P-38 pilots did this in combat and it worked well, though there were limits; it could also throw the aircraft into an unrecoverable inverted flat spin if mistimed. Even without such unsafe practices, the P38 turned better than the A6M at speeds above 250 kt (440 km/hr), where the A6M's controls, lacking mechanical assist, became extremely heavy. More to the point, "maneuver" means putting oneself in a position of advantage to kill the enemy. Below 20,000 feet (6km) the P38 had significant advantages in speed, climb, dive, and acceleration over the A6M which allowed the P38 pilot who understood his aircraft's strengths and weaknesses, and the enemy's, to put himself in the position of advantage, provided that he understood boom-and-zoom tactics.

I wonder what a P38 with twin supercharged Merlin or Griffin engines would have been capable of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.156.96 (talk) 02:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was the "oldsmobile 37 mm cannon" described in this article the same as the M4 cannon? It links to that article, and in that article the P-38 isn't mentioned as having used the M4. Could someone pls clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.56.100.23 (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's the same weapon. The P-38 isn't listed at the M4 page because the weapon was tested in the plane, found unreliable and not employed in any theater. The P-38 is not relevant to the M4 except as a very brief footnote. Binksternet (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I'd ask here before editing. The article states that the planes from the 1942 games are not actually Lightnings:

"Don't add Capcom's "1942" or "19xx" scrolling shooter video game. That appearance isn't called a P-38 Lightning; it's called a Super Ace. Don't add Psikyo's "Strikers 1945" copycat version as the game is not notable enough. Your effort will be deleted."

However, the ship in 1944: The Loop Master is called a P-38, exactly a P-38L unless I'm wrong. It's in the opening demonstration. If you want, I could take a screenshot. Elm-39 - T/C 18:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to take the screenshot proving your point. Binksternet (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm mistaken. It's not a P-38L, it's a P-38JGL. Is this a fictional custom of the P-38J? I say this because the player 2 ship is identified as a A6M2GL Type 21 Zero (A custom A6M2 Type 0 Model 21?); both ships have a "GL" in their name. Elm-39 - T/C 13:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fully fictional. The P-38 never had 30mm weaponry nor did it have the designation "P-38JGL". But hey, they call it a P-38! Binksternet (talk) 13:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've added it and a note. If at any time do you deem Capcom "unworthy" of such inclusion, I do not object to removing the material. =D Elm-39 - T/C 16:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen a P-38 that transforms into a MEGATRON! I'm adding it too! --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure you don't want to talk about this? Elm-39 - T/C 14:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the LoopMaster entry per WP:ATRIV, WP:MILPOP, and WP:AIRPOP, and added the hidden note from Template:NoMoreCruft. Games are not generally considered notable by the [[WP:AIR] project. To assert notability, sources need to be provided that attest to the notabiolity of the game TO the aircraft, meaning that it is closely identified with the aircraft along the lines of Top Gun and the F-14. Thanks for understanding. - BillCJ (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, makes more sense. I was just wondering why such would be removed, seeing as I couldn't find a general guideline on it. (in this case, the guidelines were contained under specific WikiProjects) Elm-39 - T/C 18:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everywhere I've read it states the P-38 held a 150 rounds in it's drum magazine for the 20mm cannon. I have closely examined a Bendix MrkII 20mm and it's magazine (the Navy's shipboard type). The magazine I examined was clearly marked as having a capacity of 60 rounds, it appeared to be the same size as that fitted to the P-38. Has anyone actually SEEN the magazine for a P-38 anmd CONFIRMED it holds 150 rounds?

Please sign your posts with four tildes. As for confirming the number of 20mm rounds, somebody going and looking isn't the way Wikipedia works. We cite published expert sources, not observations by individuals. There's no harm in going out and physically checking facts to make sure, but the listed reference here will always be to some book or military instruction manual. Binksternet (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted

"Both the P-38G and P-38H models' performance was restricted by an intercooler system integral to the wing's leading edge; one which had been designed for smaller engines. Most ground crews removed this in order to get more power at lower altitudes where the danger of overheating was reasonably low."

because it's evident somebody doesn't understand the use of intercoolers (to increase the power of supercharging) & is confusing it with rads. I don't know which it's supposed to be, so if somebody can fix this, do put it back. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 11:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who added the "Most crews..." sentence and I haven't seen it in any sources which is why it was fact tagged. The bit about P-38G and H intercoolers being too small for the new uprated engines was put there by me, taken from Warren Bodie's book. I'll add that part back and, when I get a chance, cite it. Binksternet (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:BeBoldInEdits deleted some text, summarizing "Repetive use of the fact these planes were used at trainers and extra text. Why do we care about a speed of a trainer that is inferior to complete version." I say we care because there has been a helluva lot of mythology surrounding this British/French order, with conflicting versions, and an accurate telling of the story will do some good here. The $100M order also spurred Allison to open a new factory and really start to crank out engines. For them and for Lockheed, the order was highly significant. Binksternet (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The aircraft were successfully converted into trainers, albeit limited in high-altitude performance. FWiW, repetitive text was adjusted. Bzuk (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Warren Bodie uses all of his fingers and toes to count what happened to the British order of 667 aircraft which was 100% taken over by USAAF, arriving at:

• 3 unmodified P-322-61-04 (P/RP-322-I) loaned to RAF by USAAF
• 19 unmodified P-322-61-04 (P/RP-322-I) used as advanced trainers
• 121 reworked P-322-62-18 (P-322-II) with V-1710F-2 non-turbo engines, used as advanced trainers
• 29 P-38F-13 (Model 322-60-19) c/n 3144 to 3172 mostly to combat, one to Lockheed (AF221)
• 121 P-38F-15 (Model 322-60-19) c/n 3173 to 3293 sent to combat
• 174 P-38G-13 (Model 322-68-19) c/n 3294 to 3467 sent to combat
• 200 P-38G-15 (Model 322-68-19) c/n 3468 to 3500, 3502 to 3668 mostly to combat, a few to Lockheed

Note that c/n #3501 was somehow unaccounted for. Bodie pored through Lockheed and USAAF records but found nothing to explain the missing number. It's the only Lightning that was ever "lost", though my guess is that the aircraft entered military service via the backdoor. The unusual "AF221" plane was used by Lockheed for a bunch of tests including a flight carrying two dummy torpedoes, each weighing 1927 lbs. With full gun ammo and fuel, the aircraft had a gross takeoff weight of 19,970 lbs and achieved an indicated speed of 300 mph in level flight at 10,000 feet; a 16.7% reduction from unloaded performance. It could take twice the munitions twice as far at half again the speed of a Fairey Barracuda, risking one-third the number of airmen. Nope, the British didn't want this lame duck. Binksternet (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Bowers follows up on the reasoning behind the creation of the Lightning Is being predicated on standardizing on an engine choice that would be the same in the P-39 as well as the P-38. As to the missing #3501, that's an intriguing story, what happened to it might be something as simple as an accounting error, but maybe... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

None of this has anything to do with the fact the article says that they had lackluster performance, then later saying they were "Quite fast" without citation. I think it would have been differnt if it said something like air racer Speedy MacSpeeder, formerly a test American test pilot, was quoted as saying the P-322 was actually faster than many planes of the time. You seem to know a lot about this, I don't want to volunteer you but you might be better suited to cleaning up this paragraph then me, but it certainly needs to be cleaned. Their were at least 4 different ways of saying Model 322.

As for your conspiracy theory I would just say its more likely it got lost seeing as how the military can a T-28 heavy tank for 27 years. Then again it was a crazy time... Be Bold In Edits (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although the so-called "castrated Lightnings" (a pretty derogatory term if you ever had to coin an epithet) were limited in performance "up top", their speed at low altitude was sufficient for the majority of them to act as trainers. At least one source, Joe Christy, claims that the Lightning I was intended for a ground-attack mission from the outset, but as combat conditions changed in the European Theatre, the British looked for an excuse to cancel the order in favour of more capable high-altitude performers. The last edit links to an overall reference source from Bodie, p. 64 where he indicates that the P-322 configuration was actually quite well suited to later high speed racing which involved low-level runs. FWiW, the contemporary P-38 Reno racers use a very similar engine modification and have produced respectable speeds "on the deck." Bzuk (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Joe Christy gets some important P-38 stuff dead wrong in his book American Aviation starting on page 176 where he says that the plane wasn't "combat ready" until 1944. Tell that to Yamamoto's widow! Christy continues to say that the flap that fixed the nose-down uncontrollable dive characteristic was a "dive brake" which slowed the fighter's descent. Not true--it just changed the airfoil characteristics. I'm sure he gets some things right, but I keep a little salt nearby when I see him quoted. Binksternet (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BeBold, I don't read conspiracy theory into the article, I read changed priorities by the British in mid-'41 and subsequently lots of bitter feelings and false information going around. Your Being Bold here caught me flat-footed. I've been making notes for a week in preparation for a major curry-combing of this article to make it cohesive and readable. Subjective terms like 'lackluster' will fall to my sharp pencil by the time I'm through. Give me some breathing room on this article and you'll like it more by May day. Binksternet (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More about what happened to the British planes: several of the P-38G-13 models were right up front during the Yamamoto shootdown, with Lanphier and Barber flying two of them. Jim Shubin used one when he made "ace in a day". Robert Petit sank a ship flying one. Binksternet (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Were these planes fighted with upgraded engines by this time or were they flown in this historic event in "sub-standard" trim? (more curiosity than anything). Be Bold In Edits (talk) 05:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They were one or two steps past full Lightning II trim, as specified in the British contract which was greatly modified and signed on August 4, 1941 to have the majority of aircraft delivered with V-1710F Allisons, turbo boost and counter-rotation. The Lightning II trim was the same as the US P-38E trim, but during the production run of these planes, pylons for external stores were added underwing to make them P-38Fs, along with air lines, fuel lines, valves and pumps for pressurizing external fuel tanks and for sucking gas up through the pylon. This allowed the Yamamoto assassins to have greater range than in any prior mission. They each carried one 300–330 and one 150–165 gallon tank so that they could fly far out to sea as opposed to coming roaring up The Slot which would have given themselves away... Going home was about a 400-mile straight line, going out was a wide detour, somewhere around 600 miles in distance. The P-38G-13 engine was the slightly more powerful V-1710F-10, not the F-5 that was in the P-38F-13. I doubt the British order would have been given pylons and stronger engines as they became available, without a further change to the contract. The P-38G-13s were delivered to the USAAF between Nov '42 and Jan '43; I don't know exactly when they reached the Pacific Theater. Yamamoto was killed April 18. Binksternet (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The hardest myth to kill is the one that says the Brits canceled the order after flying the plane and seeing that it was slow. They canceled in late summer or autumn 1941, and first flew three 'craft no earlier than May '42. Binksternet (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christie indicates that the RAF evaluation at the factory took place prior to the Ministry of Supply reducing the order from 667 to 143 aircraft. Eventually, there were only three Lightning Is that were actually accepted for flight test but by August 1940, the USAAF signed a contract for the entire production run of 667 aircraft. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Can't imagine where that author got the idea that the US Gummint bought up the Franco-British order back in 1940. Why in that case would the Brits feel the need to rewrite the contract in mid-'41? As to the RAF pilot's report from Burbank, he might well have communicated that the aircraft was slow, but if so, Bodie couldn't find the record in British archives. The guy wasn't actually seeing a slow plane. o_O He did communicate something about tail flutter in an attempt to describe the ongoing aerodynamic problems, but the P-322 was a flyable fighter with a few restrictions placed on it, not a complete and utter dog. At the time, it was faster than Warhawks, Mustang Is and Hurricanes. Bodie makes speculative noises about the condition of the British treasury and how they might have been looking for an easy out, but who knows? Binksternet (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting, looks like their may be a lot more too this stuff then I thought. I'm glad this talk has brought all of this to my attention. I think you guys have this article pretty well under control so I'll probably try to be less active on this page compared to others.

When I was talking about conspiracy theories I was only referring to "to the missing #3501" nothing else and was mostly joking. Sorry I didn't make that clear.

Kind of off topic, but instead of posting to both of your talk pages I know I have both of your attention here and I think you guys would have good advice on this issue. I removed the US centric tag from the E-2 Hawkeye‎ since it was placed about 4 years ago and seemed based on some pretty sketchy reasons ("wasn't actually built by the US Navy") and it doesn't seem to be any more or less centric than the rest of the Air articles, so if their was an issue I think it would be better dealt with in the Air template talk. If you guys could post in the E-2 talk page their about my concerns I would appreciate that.

Be Bold In Edits (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I still had Bodie's book in my collection I'd make a brief note that he did not go supersonic in a dive. I was doing some web searching about Hough today and I find that legend is still floating around. Apparently, it made the newspapers of the time so I think it needs an official Wikipedia stake driven (ack!) through the heart. Hmmm...maybe it's in the original series that appeared in Wings/Airpower. Lemme check. Cheers!--Phyllis1753 (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's tough to kill a myth in a wiki article without giving it undue weight. Certainly, we can say that the P-38 was incapable of going faster than 68–69% of the speed of sound, even diving straight down. We can also say that indicated air speed was always a lot higher than actual air speed when near terminal velocity, due to the rudimentary instruments of the day. Other aircraft had the same problems, and enjoy the same kinds of myths. The Mustang and the Thunderbolt supposedly went 600 mph straight down, even though the Mustang's Mach 0.85 terminal velocity would have been about 560 mph at 20,000 ft. Binksternet (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generally aware of it. I was thinking more about a brief statement that a P-38 just couldn't do it. (If it's in Wikipedia, it must be true...right? ;^D) Cheers!--Phyllis1753 (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Early in 1944 the P-38H Lightning, P-51B Mustang and P-47C Thunderbolt, were dived for compressibility testing at the RAE Farnborough at the request of Jimmy Doolittle, as the 8th Air Force had been having trouble when these aircraft dived down onto attacking German fighters whilst providing top cover for the bombers. The results were that the tactical Mach numbers, i.e., the maneuvering limits, were Mach 0.68 for the Lightning, Mach 0.71 for the Thunderbolt, and Mach 0.78 for the Mustang. The corresponding figure for both the Fw 190 and Me 109 was Mach 0.75. The tests resulted in the Mustang being chosen for all escort duties from then on. One of the pilots performing these dive tests was Eric "Winkle" Brown, and he talks about the above on page 70 of his book; Wings On My Sleeve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.254.15 (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we putting 0.79 inches after the listing of 20 mm cannon? Nobody in the US ever says 0.79 inches when referring to this cannon—they all say "twenty millimeter". In general, the listing of both units, metric and US, can only be used sensibly if one group of readers would be lost without a translation. In this case, no group would benefit, as Americans already use the metric version in common language, and the more sane rest of the world needs no translation into inches. I protest the ridiculous inclusion of 0.79 inches into this article. Binksternet (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an "insane" American, I must agree with Binksternet -- we all have called it a 20mm cannon (even though I have no idea how big 20mm really is).  :) 70.169.212.130 (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too big for a soft target. ;^)

Binksternet (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the p-38 has been able to reach the transonic speed in a dive but they lose control....

its happened to a number of pilots who flew the p-38 and went into a dive while chasing an enemy plane.....

shouldnt this be added to the article??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.60.233.245 (talk) 03:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article on the F4U Corsair says the Corsair was the first over 400. ?? AMCKen (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)AMCKen[reply]

I'm coming across the same issue in another medium. I'm going to look into it more. Right now that doesnt seem plosable the P38 broke the trans continental speed record on Febuary 11, 1939 The F4U didnt even fly untill May 29, 1940, more thana year later. Perhaps they mean single engine FighterCmschroeder (talk) 10:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38-wayne.html Last paragraph in the Thrust Horsepower/parasite area section right before "Maximum speed and climb" the author says "This is often quoted as the top speed of the XP-38, but as flown, it would appear to be between 394 to 403 mph. Nonetheless, this makes the P-38 the first 400-mph fighter in history." I'm going to try to get another source and see about dates for the F4U as well. Cmschroeder (talk) 12:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just changed the F4U page to read "single-engine". The P-38 clearly beat it to 400. Binksternet (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The aircraft performance article states that the XP-38 values were estimates derived from calculations, not actually measured. "One of the calculations showed a maximum speed of 394 mph at 20,000 feet on 1150 hp/ engine". GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That conflicts with Bodie's detailed account of the February 11, 1939 XP-38 cross country speed dash which pilot Ben Kelsey says that 400+ was achieved in level flight. The prototype's engine mounting was substantially heavier than later production versions but the aircraft's gun ports were faired over (the weight of the guns and ammo was supplied by ballast.) The extra mounting weight took away about 2 mph but the lack of projecting gun barrels (as in the later recon version) added 7.8 mph. Kelsey's post-speed-run report, incompletely quoted by the aircraft performance article, remains solidly on the conservative side, with an emphasis on average values and predictability in combat. About the top speeds reached, Kelsey wrote

...With a helping tailwind, the ground speed from Enid, Oklahoma, to St. Louis, Missouri, was over 400 mph. Pittsburgh was reached from Wright Field in 33 minutes, giving a speed of 400 mph including the climb, while at altitude the airplane was actually making 420 mph.

If you're going to quote calculated instead of actual speeds, Kelly Johnson calculated before first flight that the prototype would have 403 mph. Afterward in Report 1483, with new information replacing rough estimates, he calculated 413 mph for a gun barrel fighter and 420.8 for a recon plane. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"With a helping tailwind, the ground speed..." (my emphasis) implies that the actual airspeed was less. I presume speed records are set on average in both directs to compensate for such effects.GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After the XP-38 crashed, Kelsey's boss Oliver P. Echols, and Echols's boss Hap Arnold, were both ecstatic about the new "400-mph fighter." They weren't all that upset about the crash—they were just glad Kelsey had survived so easily. They trotted Kelsey around to various dinners and meetings in DC so that he could retell the speed dash story to influential politicians and businessmen. The aircraft was promoted as being the 400 mph fighter. The fact that they never ran it on a timed course going both directions to factor out the effects of the wind was not important to the brass. Kelsey said many years later that he could have easily taken it well beyond 400 mph TAS but that he saw no need to go to War Emergency Power at any point on a 3000 mile flight, where fuel consumption was a concern, not to mention the fact that if an engine were damaged, very few airfields were paved smoothly enough with long enough runways to land the plane without incident, greatly limiting Kelsey's landing options. The VIPs were happy enough with 400+ ground speed, and with the speed projections from Lockheed's engineers. Binksternet (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

8 square feet for such a plane does not seem plausible. It's 12ft tall, it can't be 8in wide.

Gunston has it wrong: the first Fw 200 Condor taken down by the USAAF was 14 August 1942 over the Atlantic near Iceland, not a few minutes after the attack on Pearl Harbor! What a crock... the ferrying of P-38s over the North Atlantic didn't begin until July 1942. The Condor kill was shared between a P-40 and a P-38, though the P-38 pilot reported that the P-40 damage was superficial. This information is from Warren Bodie, a more astute observer of the P-38. Binksternet (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took out the section where it was described how the P-38 served as fodder for the last biplane kill of any war. The cite is very poor, with "an unknown pilot" putting in a claim for a P-38. What?! A P-38 could have been lost on this mission any number of ways, and the cite does not answer how. It is not enlightening. It would be appropriately interesting if we knew where the biplane's bullets hit and why they were fatal to the P-38, or if the P-38 was hit by friendly fire, or if it was simply the victim of poor judgment by its pilot like starting an aerobatic maneuver which ended in a dive into the ground. Binksternet (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took out a cite that inadequately compared the P-38 to the Messerschmitt Bf 110 twin-engine heavy fighter. Here's what was written:

P-38s soon joined Spitfires in escorting the early Fortress raids over Europe, but this large twin-engined fighter displayed many of the same short-comings against single engined opponents as had the Messerschmitt Me 110 in 1940. But the Americans badly needed a single-engined long range fighter for escort work.

This was supported by a Mike Spick book.

I took it out because the Bf 110 was a slower airplane which held two men. The extra weight of the second guy and the larger cockpit accommodations took away from its effective power as compared to a one-man design. Spick may have elaborated about the comparison in his book, but as presented here, the comparison is baldly lacking in context. What shortcomings were common between the two aircraft? Not encyclopedic. Binksternet (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put back the Spick's quote as significative and useful to explain the difficulties the P-38 had againsts the single engined Axis fighter. The weight 60 kilos of another aviator inside the cockpit did not change the performance of a fighter with two powerful engines...

--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You would have a good argument from Kelly Johnson about the significance of the second aviator! More is involved than 60 kg of mass, of course. The extra cabin requirements, some extra controls, another seat, more oxygen gear, possibly more armor—all of these make a very large difference. Binksternet (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't fixed this problem: "many of the same short-comings" is not adequate to tell about the P-38. What shortcomings? Binksternet (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took out a sentence about the prototype crashing while taxiing at the edge of the runway during the days preceding its speed dash, supported by Gunston translated to Italian. The prototype did not "crash". During the testing of the prototype, several things were discovered which required engineering fixes. One was that it needed heavier brakes that were able to stop better. The landing gear was modified to be stronger. A couple of other things. If the aircraft ran off the runway during this time, it was not a significant event.

Also, I see absolutely no need for Gunston's book to be presented here in any but its native English. Binksternet (talk) 16:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problem in using the Italian translation of Gunston, as long as an "authoritative" internet translator such as Google is use to translate back into English. ;) Why do English language illiterates insist on posting their crap here? Is this dude also banned from it.wp like his friend Stephy? Seriously, they cause more work and trouble than it's worth. Perhaps the German wikipedia could use them - no, that wouldn't work, they use flagged revisions, so nothing this "expert" writes would be kept. French perhaps? It is also a romance language, so it should be easier for Google to translate from Italian to French than into English. If he's been banned from the French WP, I'd be willing to wirte a letter of reference to get him reinstated there. (I don't speak French, but I can trasnlate with Google.) - BilCat (talk) 17:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took out a phrase that said the prototype made "only two" fuel stops during its speed dash to New York. The two fuel stops could easily have been made into "only one." However, the number of fuel stops was made into two because the airplane was required by Air Corps brass to make an appearance at Wright Field near Dayton, Ohio. This put a crimp in the planning for fuel, as the distance of some 1,870 miles between the bases was too far to fly from March Field at high speed. Instead, a fueling stop at Amarillo Air Field was determined, a distance of 1060 miles from the California starting point. If the airmen really wanted to break the transcontinental speed record, they would have done three things: they would have arranged to have federal or international observers on hand at each stop, they would have selected ONE fueling stop location approximately halfway across the country, and they would have made the fueling crew hurry to finish the task. In Amarillo, the fueling was carried out at a slow speed which frustrated Kelsey, and in Dayton, Kelsey was made to join in some photo opportunities for the press.

Anyway, the wording "only two" fuel stops is inaccurate. There were two fuel stops because Dayton was a command appearance. Binksternet (talk) 17:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The armament section is a mess. Someone seems to have turned it into an excuse to ramble on and on and on. Look at any other page on fighter aircraft. Armament is for listing purposes only! I propose all that pointless text is either deleted or moved and the armament section goes back to being just a list of what it had, nothing more. Rett Mikhal (talk) 02:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The real world answer is more complex than the one you want to hear. There was never "a list of what it had, nothing more"—there was a range of different versions of the armament, depending on model, theater and command organization. I'm satisfied with the armament section as it stands. Binksternet (talk) 04:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, no. I'm not talking about the abundance of weapons, that's true to real life and any other combat aircraft article. What I'm talking about is the one spot that talks about the gun, because when it talks, it pours. It goes on and on about muzzle velocity, rate of fire, velocity, even the gun timing. I have no problem with this information being in the article, but it looks awful there. Find me one other article on combat aircraft that is like that and I'll accept it, but I think I've seen them all and this is the only one that looks so cluttered. The information just needs to be moved.Rett Mikhal (talk) 05:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to somewhere else in the article? That's reasonable. Binksternet (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There we go. Everyone can be happy with that. The information is preserved and it fits the same template as all the other fighter plane articles. Rett Mikhal (talk) 05:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This bit about test results in 1942 was removed from a list of stats, but deserves to be recast in better prose and repositioned in the article body:

• Turn radius: an equal or tighter radius of turn above 15,000 ft (4,600 m) against the P-51, P-40F, P-47C-1 and P-39D
• Roll rate: Testing at Eglin Field determined the rate of roll to be too slow at high speeds, causing a serious disadvantage because the P-38F could not transition from level flight to its tightest turn radius fast enough to keep up with fighters that could roll more quickly into their turns.

Reference: "WWII Aircraft Performance: P-38F Tactical Trials". Final Report on Tactical Suitability of the P-38F Type Airplane, 6 March 1943. At Eglin Field in 1942, with P-38F. The P-38G and later models further tightened the turn radius, especially the P-38L. Binksternet (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did the USAF actually have any operational P-38s at formation? Hcobb (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took out wikilinks to interceptor aircraft, as the intention of Ben Kelsey (as expressed in his book The Dragon's Teeth?) was to get a heavier fighter with a stronger punch, more capable of dog-fighting than the fighters of other nations. As defined at its article, an interceptor aircraft is for downing enemy attack aircraft such as bombers, but with a corresponding reduction in dog-fighting capabilities. Kelsey intended no such reduction, and the P-38 showed no such reduction. Kelsey used the word "interceptor" on paper to bypass Air Corps restrictions on the weaponry of pursuit planes. He did not think of the term as it is defined today. Binksternet (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could not figure out how to enter the cruising speed into the specs. Looks like the spec template, where that is defined, does not allow for cruising speed. The reference to the Air Force Museum says 275 MPH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1peterk (talk • contribs) 21:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]